"Taylor Swift has two cats. TWO!! Also its not that she can't keep the men. It's the men can't keep her."

Firstly, my opponent's argument is inductive, meaning that these statements perhaps indicate that Taylor Swift is not a crazy cat lady. However, this leaves room for doubt, and since the resolution requires affirmation beyond any doubt, the resolution cannot be affirmed via inductive reasoning. To show this line of rebuttal in a concrete fashion, only have two cats may indicate that she is not a crazy cat lady, yet it conceivable that Taylor is a crazy cat lady. For example, she could be in the process of purchasing more cats, of which a crazy cat lady might do. This possibility is enough to negate the resolution.

Secondly, there is no evidence to suggest either way that either men don't want her, or she doesn't think the men she met are good enough for her. Without contextual evidence, this point remains unaffirmed.

Lastly, none of my opponent's claims are referenced. This renders my opponent's arguments as bare assertions, of which means they are logical fallacies [1].

The burden of proof has not been me; the resolution remains unaffirmed.

Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Pro forfeited the majority of the debate with the exception of round 1, which is rarely acceptable conduct in any debate setting whatsoever. | S&G: "Taylor Swift has two cats. TWO!! Also its not that she can't keep the men." - the word "two" is unnecessarily capitalized and has an informal additional exclamation mark. "its" is an abbreviation of "it is", and must have an apostrophe. "It's the men can't keep her" should have the word "that" between "it's" and "the". Con made no major S&G errors. | Arguments: Pro's forfeiture restricted Pro from making any major arguments; the first argument was based on bare assertions. Con made the sole supported arguments. | Sources: Con used the only source in the debate. | As always, happy to clarify this RFD.

Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con due to FF by Pro. | Arg to Con as she refuted all of Pro's arguments and Pro failed to fulfill the BoP. | Sources to Con, as Con was the only one to use source. | S&G goes to Con, as Con had only 1 error, and Pro had 7.